Re: [Netconf] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Minor comments:
> 
> Should the revision statement in the YANG module be updated to reflect
> the actual date of publication of the RFC, or will it remain
> 2018-02-21?

Yes, the module has the usual comment:

  // RFC Ed.: update the date below with the date of RFC publication
  // and remove this note.

> Not so minor a comment:
> 
> 1) I note at least one use of the lower case (“must”) in the
> document. Suggest either shifting any lower-case requirements to upper
> case or using https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174> for the definition of
> requirements language. A Gen-ART review will look at some of the RFC
> 2119 language more critically.

I will update the 2119/8174 boilerplate text, and use "MUST" instead
of "must" where appropriate.

But, in the Objective section we use a mix of "MUST" and "must".  I
think the correct thing to do is use "must" in this section.

> 2) A run to validate the example in the back of the document using
> yanglint revealed the following error. I could not validate if this
> was a tool issue, a tool use issue or a bug that needs looking at, as
> the error message is very cryptic and there are no references to any
> line numbers.
> 
> err : Module "ietf-yang-library" in another revision already
> implemented.
> err : Module "ietf-yang-library" parsing failed.

This is a well-known yanglint problem.  The yanglint-people are aware
of this.

> 3) A run of idnits reveals the following:
> 
>   Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
>   https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>      No issues found here.
> 
>   Checking nits according to
>   https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>      No issues found here.
> 
>   Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>      No issues found here.
> 
>   Miscellaneous warnings:
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   == Line 282 has weird spacing: '...mespace    ine...'
> 
>   == Line 293 has weird spacing: '...mespace    ine…'
> 
> <I generally ignore this>
> 
>   == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate,
>   even if
>      it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. 
> 
>      (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
>      ID-Checklist requires).
> 
> <I see that you do reference RFC 2119, so do not know why this
> message. Either ways, see my other comment on the use of lower case
> “must” statement.>
> 
>   -- The document date (February 27, 2018) is 33 days in the past.  Is this
>      intentional?
> 
> <Ignore>
> 
> 
>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
>      references
>      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
> 
> <If I am updating the document, I would update some of these
> references>
> <But check one reference in particular with (**)>
> 
>   == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores has been
>      published as RFC 8342
> 
>   ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341)
> 
> <Any reason we are referencing RFC 6536 still?>
> 
>   == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo has been
>   published
>      as RFC 8345
> 
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of
>      draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-03
> 
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
>      draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-02
> 
>   == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-entity has been published as
>   RFC 8348
> 
>   == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis has been published
>   as RFC
>      8343
> 
>   == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis has been published
>   as RFC
>      8344
> 
>   == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis has been published
>   as RFC
>      8349
> 
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
>      draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-08
> 
>   == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has been
>      published as RFC 8340
> 
> 
>      Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

I will update the references.

Let me know if you want me to post an updated version of this document.



/martin